Monday, June 13, 2011

Mayoral veto needs seven votes

This should probably get cleared up before the commission votes tomorrow. You know, just in case they actually change anything in the budget.

There's been a lot of talk about how many members it takes to override a mayoral veto. The whole super majority thing. County Law Director Joe Jarret says seven. I've heard a lot of people say eight. And yes, I've made some cracks myself about eight, but always went with seven because lawyers get paid to argue and I get paid to listen, then scribble crap down.

So, here's the deal: It's seven.

The county charter doesn't even talk about a so-called super majority. It says that in order to override a veto, the commission needs a majority plus one. That's seven.

A simple majority for the 11-member commission obviously is six.

Good.

Now I'm curious as to whether the mayor will even have to use his veto power. I mentioned a long time back – click right smack here – that we were going to hear a lot of rhetoric from the time the budget gets presented to the time it passes, but more than likely few – if any changes – would be made.

It still takes a majority of commissioners to make approve the plan and there are quite a few who have been silent lately. Maybe enough to sign off on county Mayor Tim Burchett's budget as he proposed it without any of the proposed amendments.

30 comments:

Anonymous
said...

What a hick town. Simple majority plus one. Looks like the all mighty Baker Center missed that one when they were reducing the size of Commission. They had their big report on how to make County government better, and missed supermajority vote for veto override.

Unbelievable.

Guess they were too busy trying to get Metro Gov ramped up to do the important work of basic government.

What ever happened to the Baker Center? Oh, that's right. They imploded. Laid everybody off because they couldn't raise money. Maybe people weren't impressed with their work.

The budget requires two votes. That makes it an ordinance. And that invokes supermajority.

9thSon writes:

in response to Jack_McLeroy:

No, it is seven votes. Our poorly constructed County Charter does not require a supermajority. You can soon expect a Charter Amendment to fix this.

The Budget vote is by ordinance:

See Charter 2.10 c

Any vote of the Commission to override the veto of the Mayor of Knox County shall be taken within thirty-five (35) days of the expiration of the period required of the County Clerk to notify the members of the Commission of the veto which is the subject of such override vote. The affirmative vote of not less than a majority plus one (1) of the membership of the Commission shall be required to override the veto of the Mayor of Knox County; provided, however, in the case of ordinances and emergency ordinances requiring a two-thirds (2/3) vote for original passage, a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the membership of the Commission shall be required to override the veto of the Mayor of Knox County. The ordinance, emergency ordinance or resolution shall immediately become effective upon the Commission overriding the veto.

"If you read the charter provision carefully, you will note that only those ordinances that need a 2/3 majority for original passage need a 2/3 majority to override a veto. If an ordinance only requires a majority vote for passage, only a majority-plus-one is needed to override.

Section 2.09 of the charter lists the ordinances that need a 2/3 vote. The budget isn't one of them. Unless there's another exception in another part of the charter I haven't found, that would mean that seven (majority-plus-one) votes would be needed to override a veto.

This is a hick town (county, actually) because the charter says 63 percent of the commission is needed to override a veto? What does that make the state of Tennessee, which requires only a simple majority for an override of the governor's veto?

Also, the county passes its budget via resolution, not ordinance. Technically, it's three resolutions - one for the budget, one for the tax rate and one for the capital plan. Commissioners only vote once on each of the three.

It's great how the KNS defends Amy Broyles. Let's review. Amy didn't attend a SINGLE Budget meeting. Refused to meet with the Mayor and his staff. Crafted, if you can call it that, her special little Budget. Then went to the KNS and called the Mayor names. Then she phoned the Mayor and told him how it was going to be.

Sounds like Lumpy on crack. You didn't like Lumpy, who could be disruptive, but you love Amy who is militantly disruptive.

Look at the KNS advertising. This is why it is off. Your ideology is showing.

Hmmm. I don't think we've "defended her." We did say in today's editorial that her proposal was a good place to start the budget amendment discussion but that isn't an endorsement of it (in fact we pointedly declined to endorse it). I've heard all these rumors about her coming to KNS recently for some nefarious purpose, but I haven't seen her. And I liked Lumpy fine. He made for great copy.

Hubert's not a big fan of online conversation, apparently. Me, I like a written record. Potato, pohtahto, spud gun ammo.

Looks like the pre-meeting lobbying is reaching its crescendo. The largest group in attendance so far is the Sheriff's Office, and I hope at least the deputies making under $40k get themselves a bit of a raise.

(Oh, well, Chairman. Almost on time. But still better than the last one I attended, whenever the hell that was. Roll call done, and here we go.)

McKenzie is prefacing by saying "OMG I'm not cutting Public Works, I'm just keeping funds at the same level as last time!" Heard it before (have the email). VDV's up at Sammy's request, and that was probably not a very good move on his part.

...looks like Beck, so far, isn't getting any extra money? Am I reading this right? McKenzie's $364k plan fails. (Shoulda asked for it out of the debt paydown money, Sam. But good on you for asking for an audit. I hope you'll continue to keep respectfully requesting this until we get it. That'd be pretty awesome, actually.)

On the second amendment, we're looking at a bit of a struggle concerning tabling discussion for later, but Sam apparently isn't enthralled. Likes the KAT Senior program (and who doesn't), but getting a little rhetorical for my tastes.

Motion to restore $50k to KAT via Sam's method fails. Third motion by McKenzie - he's sounding defeated now, talking about lack of support concerning where he wants to take the funds.

(Fuckin' told ya, Sam. Just listen. Please, just listen to someone other than your usual circles for a change. Then you might not be so caught off-guard on issues like this. And we need you not to be so you can be an effective 1st District rep. There. That's as nice as I know how to tell an obviously smart guy some obvious stuff that he should've figured out on his own a long time ago.)

Long-winded speech about this not being a "city v. county" feud-type-thing. Light's out, Brown up.

the glass is usually half empty

My name is Mike Donila and I'm a reporter with WBIR in Knoxville, TN. I cover government. All politics is local, and mostly ridiculous. Travis Fain of Lucid Idiocy said that. He's a smart guy. This is my blog. The content ranges.